It seems pretty simple to me.
If we pass a law and then don’t enforce it, then compliance with that law is basically optional. In most cases, the people who choose to comply are not the people who the law is targeted at.
So if the first law doesn’t get enforced on the people we need to enforce it on, then why should we expect passing more laws that also won’t be enforced will make any sort of functional difference?
You can not enforce two laws just as easily as you can not enforce one law. Without enforcement, passing law number 2 or law number 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 isn’t going to solve the problem because you still effectively have zero laws for the people who choose not to follow them voluntarily.
Think street racers on the highway. You get sick of people driving 100+ so you reduce the speed limit from 55 to 45, but don’t assign cops to patrol the road. The people who actually follow the speed limit will unhappily comply, but the racers will ignore the 45 sign just as the ignore the 55 sign.
Both laws and enforcement are necessary, since one is useless or even detrimental without the other. Ohio taking steps to solve one issue leaves them with the other one. It’s progress
There are already shit tons of gun laws.
If there is already a law on the books that would have prevented the situation, and it wasn’t enforced, passing yet another law is foolish and futile.
In my analogy, reducing the speed limit from 55 to 45 is not ‘taking a step’ it’s a waste of time and a needless harassment for the people who actually follow the law.
Same thing here. If this happened because an existing law was not followed, then passing another law is just harassing the wrong people.
Think street racers on the highway. You get sick of people driving 100+ so you reduce the speed limit from 55 to 45, but don’t assign cops to patrol the road. The people who actually follow the speed limit will unhappily comply, but the racers will ignore the 45 sign just as the ignore the 55 sign.
In that situation, reducing the speed limit from 55 to 45 only harasses the people who follow the law, while having no effect on the people the law is targeted at (street racers) who routinely break the law anyway.
Applied to the situation- if you make this or that gun illegal, the people who follow gun laws will stop buying them, but the people who ignore gun laws (aka the people who commit most of the gun crime) will continue to buy (black market) or own those guns.
Thus, without strong enforcement, the law is useless.
This is especially true when existing laws already on the books WOULD have stopped the incident, had those laws been properly enforced.
Do you disagree? If so, explain?
It seems pretty simple to me. If we pass a law and then don’t enforce it, then compliance with that law is basically optional. In most cases, the people who choose to comply are not the people who the law is targeted at.
So if the first law doesn’t get enforced on the people we need to enforce it on, then why should we expect passing more laws that also won’t be enforced will make any sort of functional difference?
You can not enforce two laws just as easily as you can not enforce one law. Without enforcement, passing law number 2 or law number 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 isn’t going to solve the problem because you still effectively have zero laws for the people who choose not to follow them voluntarily.
Think street racers on the highway. You get sick of people driving 100+ so you reduce the speed limit from 55 to 45, but don’t assign cops to patrol the road. The people who actually follow the speed limit will unhappily comply, but the racers will ignore the 45 sign just as the ignore the 55 sign.
Both laws and enforcement are necessary, since one is useless or even detrimental without the other. Ohio taking steps to solve one issue leaves them with the other one. It’s progress
There are already shit tons of gun laws. If there is already a law on the books that would have prevented the situation, and it wasn’t enforced, passing yet another law is foolish and futile.
In my analogy, reducing the speed limit from 55 to 45 is not ‘taking a step’ it’s a waste of time and a needless harassment for the people who actually follow the law.
Same thing here. If this happened because an existing law was not followed, then passing another law is just harassing the wrong people.
what does this have to do with reducing the speed limit ? what do you mean, the road speed limit ?
It’s an analogy I made a few posts up.
In that situation, reducing the speed limit from 55 to 45 only harasses the people who follow the law, while having no effect on the people the law is targeted at (street racers) who routinely break the law anyway.
Applied to the situation- if you make this or that gun illegal, the people who follow gun laws will stop buying them, but the people who ignore gun laws (aka the people who commit most of the gun crime) will continue to buy (black market) or own those guns.
Thus, without strong enforcement, the law is useless.
This is especially true when existing laws already on the books WOULD have stopped the incident, had those laws been properly enforced.